ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Digital citizenship for health: Mapping and evaluation of existing platforms supporting digital, health, and civic literacy among young people.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Young people often lack access to literacy platforms that address their specific needs, leaving them vulnerable to misinformation, online harm, privacy risks, and limited capacity to engage in digital, health, and civic spaces. This study aimed to identify existing digital citizenship for health (DC4H) platforms and evaluate the extent to which they address the needs of young people. This study was conducted in two phases. The first phase identified relevant platforms through an integrated search approach combining academic databases, web searches, social media queries, and AI-assisted tools. The second phase evaluated the identified platforms using walkthrough assessments and document review based on 13 predefined criteria related to youth-centered values and functional literacy support. A comparative analysis was ultimately used to examine patterns, highlight strengths, and identify gaps across the platforms. The study evaluated 38 existing digital, health, and civic literacy platforms. The analysis revealed significant gaps in current platforms. All evaluated platforms focused on improving knowledge and sharing information, but fewer supported skill development (17). Most of the evaluated platforms lacked multilingual support and alternative learning formats, excluding subgroups of young people, including those with disabilities, limited digital access, and language barriers. In addition, most platforms addressed only one literacy domain rather than integrating digital, health, and civic literacy. There are gaps in existing DC4H platforms that highlight the need for more integrated solutions that connect digital, health, and civic literacy while addressing the identified limitations.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.